Divorced and Remarried Catholics and the Eucharist

[Blue_Horizon]

You are simply being sarcastic.

That’s a bit over the top and out of a clear blue sky .

A gravely sinful act knowingly and willingly committed (consent) puts a person in a state of mortal sin.

I think the starting phrase is better put as “A gravely disordered act” … because we cannot yet know if it is sinful until culpability is established surely?

But that minor point aside I agree with your statement as far as it goes.

But is this a full description and understanding of what a “state of mortal sin” is.
Perhaps it means more than this besides?

For example, do you also hold that one can fall into a “state of mortal sin” by different means than the above?

 

[Stat_Crux]

I think the starting phrase is better put as “A gravely disordered act” … because we cannot yet know if it is sinful until culpability is established surely?

This also depends on the nature of the act itself. Pope St John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor goes into some length to explain the Catholic dogma that there is an objective morality, and an objective standard of behavior that God expects from us. If it were not so, then morality would be relativistic and subject to change (so what was wrong could become right, and vice-versa). Most importantly he explains that there are some actions which are never “good” actions; the so called “intrinsic evils”.

Whilst culpability is an important question in the case of those who may be ignorant of the truth or the Church’s teaching, Catholics marrying for the first time are given wedding preparation which explains the Church’s teaching on marriage (I’m going through this at present). So no Catholic can be ignorant of the Church’s position on the indissolubility of marriage.

While Catholics who have civilly remarried may validly confess the sin of civil remarriage (which denies the indissolubility of their still-existing sacramental marriage) so long as they have a firm intention not to commit the same sin (by remarrying again). However, as Pope St John Paull II’s encyclical Familiaris Consortio clearly teaches in paragraph 84, the civilly remarried are morally obliged to refrain from sexual activity, given that at least one of them is still in a sacramental union. As Veritatis Splendor shows, sex outside of marriage is an intrinsic evil which can never be justified.

They can validly confess and be absolved if they succumb to moments of temptation if they have a firm purpose to not repeat the sin by living chaste lives, which is the so called “living as brother and sister” pastoral solution proposed by Pope St John Paul II. But there is no justification for their habitually continuing in a state of mortal sin, with no desire to change or refrain from committing the same sin. A priest may pronounce the words of the absolution, but God sees in the heart of the person that they have no intention of following God’s commandments, no intention of internal conversion, and that they presume upon God’s mercy, and so the confession is invalid and the person continues in mortal sin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This also depends on the nature of the act itself. Pope St John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor goes into some length to explain the Catholic dogma that there is an objective morality, and an objective standard of behavior that God expects from us. If it were not so, then morality would be relativistic and subject to change (so what was wrong could become right, and vice-versa). Most importantly he explains that there are some actions which are never “good” actions; the so called “intrinsic evils”.

Whilst culpability is an important question in the case of those who may be ignorant of the truth or the Church’s teaching, Catholics marrying for the first time are given wedding preparation which explains the Church’s teaching on marriage (I’m going through this at present). So no Catholic can be ignorant of the Church’s position on the indissolubility of marriage.

While Catholics who have civilly remarried may validly confess the sin of civil remarriage (which denies the indissolubility of their still-existing sacramental marriage) so long as they have a firm intention not to commit the same sin (by remarrying again). However, as Pope St John Paull II’s encyclical Familiaris Consortio clearly teaches in paragraph 84, the civilly remarried are morally obliged to refrain from sexual activity, given that at least one of them is still in a sacramental union. As Veritatis Splendor shows, sex outside of marriage is an intrinsic evil which can never be justified.

They can validly confess and be absolved if they succumb to moments of temptation if they have a firm purpose to not repeat the sin by living chaste lives, which is the so called “living as brother and sister” pastoral solution proposed by Pope St John Paul II. But there is no justification for their habitually continuing in a state of mortal sin, with no desire to change or refrain from committing the same sin. A priest may pronounce the words of the absolution, but God sees in the heart of the person that they have no intention of following God’s commandments, no intention of internal conversion, and that they presume upon God’s mercy, and so the confession is invalid and the person continues in mortal sin.

You have raised some interesting issues but I believe you have gone off tack on the small point I asserted. Namely, if there is no culpability then there can be no true sin. In the context of Thistles definition he is clearly meaning personal sin. And I would prefer to hear his responses to my further questions before clouding understandings with these other related issues from other contributors.

 

[thistle]

That’s a bit over the top and out of a clear blue sky .

I think the starting phrase is better put as “A gravely disordered act” … because we cannot yet know if it is sinful until culpability is established surely?

But that minor point aside I agree with your statement as far as it goes.

But is this a full description and understanding of what a “state of mortal sin” is.
Perhaps it means more than this besides?

For example, do you also hold that one can fall into a “state of mortal sin” by different means than the above?

You can only fall into a state of mortal sin by committing a mortal sin and that cannot be done by accident.
Assuming you know any particular act is a sin of grave matter then unless you have reduced culpability by say lack of mental capacity or coercion then by going ahead you commit a mortal sin.
If an act is a sin of grave matter but you don’t know that or you have reduced culpability through lack of mental capacity or coercion then you would not be committing a mortal sin by going ahead with that act.

 

[binari2]

You are simply being sarcastic.

A gravely sinful act knowingly (knows it is grave matter) and willingly committed (consent) puts a person in a state of mortal sin.

I believe all Catholics who divorce and “remarry” without an annulment (gravely sinful act) know that such an act is gravely sinful and therefore have committed a mortal sin.

Perhaps well catechized Catholics. I was not well catechized, rather as a teenager I basically balked at church teaching. During my 39 years “away” God, perhaps via my guardian angel, tried to get my attention with snakes, lightning, and coagulation. When I finally “woke up” I realized the vast errors in judgement and excessive sin. I was married outside the church, divorced, and remarried outside the church. How could I ever practice the faith again? Thankfully all sins can be forgiven to a repentant person. I went to confession and had some very difficult discussions with my civil spouse. We made separate sleeping arrangements and prayed…a lot. We have lived in complete continence for the past 4 years. I received a decree of nullity regarding my first civil marriage. Her case is with the tribunal regarding her previous marriage. Two years ago she went through RCIA and joined the Church! The pure joy in knowing she is afforded grace through the sacraments is all the motivation I need to understand the extent of God’s mercy and the wisdom of His Church. We have told many people in our the parish of our situation, we decline any roles in parish life considered leadership roles, avoid all public displays of affection other than those reasonable as brother and sister, and gave our permission to the priests to talk about our situation if anyone ever came to them who might feel scandalized. To some this may seem difficult and harsh. Actually, we have been receiving grace to handle it well. The Church’s teaching on marriage and married life is beautiful. I continue to love this person more each day, which is perhaps the greatest gift of the entire experience.

“His mercy endures forever”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You can only fall into a state of mortal sin by committing a mortal sin and that cannot be done by accident.
Assuming you know any particular act is a sin of grave matter then unless you have reduced culpability by say lack of mental capacity or coercion then by going ahead you commit a mortal sin.
If an act is a sin of grave matter but you don’t know that or you have reduced culpability through lack of mental capacity or coercion then you would not be committing a mortal sin by going ahead with that act.

Before going on just a brief raincheck with you…
Are you familiar with the theological notion that “states” can be entered into by means other than “commission”.

Are you aware that the two Canons relating to the necessity of Confession have been slightly but significanty changed in the 1980s revision and that the Catechisms mirror these modifications in related texts?
That is, it talks about consciousness not of “mortal” sin but “grave sin”. This has gone hand in hand with the very clear definition of “mortal sin” in the CCC that personal commission (ie full culpability) is required to properly call a sin mortal.

 

[thistle]

Before going on just a brief raincheck with you…
Are you familiar with the theological notion that “states” can be entered into by means other than “commission”.

Are you aware that the two Canons relating to the necessity of Confession have been slightly but significanty changed in the 1980s revision and that the Catechisms mirror these modifications in related texts?
That is, it talks about consciousness not of “mortal” sin but “grave sin”. This has gone hand in hand with the very clear definition of “mortal sin” in the CCC that personal commission (ie full culpability) is required to properly call a sin mortal.

Conditions for mortal sin:

• grave/serious matter
• full knowledge
• full consent of the will

If all three are satisfied then mortal sin committed. If all three not satisfied then no mortal sin committed.

How does what you have said add to/change that?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Conditions for mortal sin:

• grave/serious matter
• full knowledge
• full consent of the will

If all three are satisfied then mortal sin committed. If all three not satisfied then no mortal sin committed.

How does what you have said add to/change that?

My questions were:

Quote:
Are you familiar with the theological notion that “states” can be entered into by means other than “commission”?

Are you aware that the two Canons relating to the necessity of Confession have been slightly but significanty changed in the 1980s revision and that the Catechisms mirror these modifications in related texts?
That is, it talks about consciousness not of “mortal” sin but “grave sin”. This has gone hand in hand with the very clear definition of “mortal sin” in the CCC that personal commission (ie full culpability) is required to properly call a sin mortal?

Yes I understand your position on the commission of mortal sin.

I am attempting to see if we have an agreed and full understanding of what is really meant by the Church when we talk about entering a “state of sin”

That would seem useful if you want to draw credible conclusions re persons being “in a state of mortal sin” and what that actually means as opposed to “committing mortal sin.”

 

[thistle]

My questions were:

Yes I understand your position on the commission of mortal sin.

I am attempting to see if we have an agreed and full understanding of what is really meant by the Church when we talk about entering a “state of sin”

That would seem useful if you want to draw credible conclusions re persons being “in a state of mortal sin” and what that actually means as opposed to “committing mortal sin.”

When you commit a mortal sin you are then in a state of mortal sin. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You cannot be in a state of mortal sin without committing a mortal sin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When you commit a mortal sin you are then in a state of mortal sin. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You cannot be in a state of mortal sin without committing a mortal sin.

I would like to theologise openly and neutrally with you Thistle if you could be a little less defensive about what may be a slightly loose use of theological phrases which I would like to explore with you?

Are you willing and able to do that?

If so I would like to explore with you how a state differs from an act.
Are you aware that states of sin can be entered by ways other than commission?
Are you aware that where the old Canon Law and Catechisms use the phrase “mortal sin” they really meant “grave sin” in some cases?

For example it would also be interesting in this regard to understand your view on the sinful state of the unbaptised newly born. Without further divine intervention unbeknown to us is their fate just as spiritually mortal as that of an adult mortal sinner? They committed no mortal sin… yet they seem to be in a state of mortal sin.

If you are educating readers here isn’t it important you make sure you upgrade your own personal theology too if it derives from the old learning material?

 

[thistle]

I would like to theologise openly and neutrally with you Thistle if you could be a little less defensive about what may be a slightly loose use of theological phrases which I would like to explore with you?

Are you willing and able to do that?

If so I would like to explore with you how a state differs from an act.
Are you aware that states of sin can be entered by ways other than commission?
Are you aware that where the old Canon Law and Catechisms use the phrase “mortal sin” they really meant “grave sin” in some cases?

For example it would also be interesting in this regard to understand your view on the sinful state of the unbaptised newly born. Without further divine intervention unbeknown to us is their fate just as spiritually mortal as that of an adult mortal sinner? They committed no mortal sin… yet they seem to be in a state of mortal sin.

If you are educating readers here isn’t it important you make sure you upgrade your own personal theology too if it derives from the old learning material?

Stop being condescending. Why do you think nobody else is getting into the discussion.

**We are only talking about a person of age of reason with full mental capacity and no coercion. We are not talking about the unborn and the born below the age of reason.
**

Example.

The Church teaches that adultery is a sin of grave matter. I know the Church teaches that. Nevertheless, I go ahead and commit adultery. I have therefore committed a mortal sin which means I am in a state of mortal sin.

Using the paramenters I have I have bolded/underlined give me an example of how such a person can be in a state of mortal sin without committing a mortal sin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Stop being condescending…

First you call me sarcastic, now you call me condescending .

What is going on Thistle?
I have been polite, open and straight forward with you.
Out of clear blue skies you react like I have slapped you across the face with a wet fish .
Is it due to my observation that you may be using technical terms a little loosely?

May I repeat my good faith invitation to discuss with me how a state differs from an act. Are you willing and able to do that?

Are you aware that states of sin can be entered by ways other than commission?

Are you aware that where the old Canon Law and Catechisms use the phrase “mortal sin” they really meant “grave sin” in some cases?

Thats why it would be interesting in this regard to understand your view on the sinful state of the unbaptised newly born. Without further divine intervention (unbeknownst to us) is their fate just as spiritually mortal as that of an adult mortal sinner?

They committed no mortal sin… yet they seem to be in a state of mortal sin.
Remember you said “You cannot be in a state of mortal sin without committing a mortal sin.” Not buts or exceptions?

As I observe, if you are educating readers here isn’t it important you make sure your own theology matches these CCC and Canon Law clarifications if your assertions derive from the old learning material…which I believe they do?

Why do you think nobody else is getting into the discussion.

Umn. Because they have and I asked them not to as below.

We are all waiting for you to step up to the plate…

 

[twf]

Divorced and “remarried” Catholics without having an annulment are NOT permitted to receive Communion. Such persons would be guilty of adultery and in a state of mortal sin. Nobody in a state of mortal sin may receive Communion. That is infallible and there can be no exceptions.

On the other hand if such persons confessed their adultery and ceased all sexual relationships until getting an annulment they would be able to receive Communion.

Thistle: I think we all know that the OP’s question was triggered by the current confusion over this issue in the Church. Since the promulgation of A.L., a number of dioceses, including Rome itself, have issued new guidelines allowing for the possibility of those in invalid and illicit second civil unions to receive communion if, after a period of discernment with their priest, they are deemed to not be fully culpable. This is very controversial and the debate is very public (take the recent Dubia of the 4 cardinals). That’s what the OP had in mind I believe.

 

[eddie_too]

how does anyone know the state of another person’s soul? tell me that.

if a person does not know the state of another person’s soul, by what faculty do they pass judgment on another person’s soul? tell me that.

has the Church ever declared the decisions of its marriage tribunals infallible?

if not, how do people know that refusal or granting of an annulment was not done in error?

it seems to me that all of the hub bub about amoris laetitia is generated by people who embrace the “letter of the law” school of religion.

 

[thistle]

First you call me sarcastic, now you call me condescending .

What is going on Thistle?
I have been polite, open and straight forward with you.
Out of clear blue skies you react like I have slapped you across the face with a wet fish .
Is it due to my observation that you may be using technical terms a little loosely?

May I repeat my good faith invitation to discuss with me how a state differs from an act. Are you willing and able to do that?

Are you aware that states of sin can be entered by ways other than commission?

Are you aware that where the old Canon Law and Catechisms use the phrase “mortal sin” they really meant “grave sin” in some cases?

Thats why it would be interesting in this regard to understand your view on the sinful state of the unbaptised newly born. Without further divine intervention (unbeknownst to us) is their fate just as spiritually mortal as that of an adult mortal sinner?

They committed no mortal sin… yet they seem to be in a state of mortal sin.
Remember you said “You cannot be in a state of mortal sin without committing a mortal sin.” Not buts or exceptions?

As I observe, if you are educating readers here isn’t it important you make sure your own theology matches these CCC and Canon Law clarifications if your assertions derive from the old learning material…which I believe they do?

Umn. Because they have and I asked them not to as below.

We are all waiting for you to step up to the plate…

“step up to the plate”??!! How dare you? Any more and I will report you to the moderators. More sarcasm. You continue to be uncharitable.

I told you my comments were not about the unborn/ born but below the age of reason. We all know the situation regarding that. Being in a state of original sin only (no personal act by the person) and actual mortal sin (personal act committed by the person) are different. Both dying in that state - those in a state of original sin only MAY (the Church does not know) still be saved. Those dying in a state of mortal sin WILL NOT be saved.

As for the actual thread topic, there has been no change and there will be no change in the Church teaching. Anyone who divorces and “remarries” without an annulment living in a sexual relationship in that “remarriage” will not and will never be allowed to receive Communion.
The Pope has no authority to breach a teaching (not a discipline) and tell priests they may give Communion to such persons.

 

[twf]

“step up to the plate”??!! How dare you? Any more and I will report you to the moderators. More sarcasm. You continue to be uncharitable.

I told you my comments were not about the unborn/ born but below the age of reason. We all know the situation regarding that. Being in a state of original sin only (no personal act by the person) and actual mortal sin (personal act committed by the person) are different. Both dying in that state - those in a state of original sin only MAY (the Church does not know) still be saved. Those dying in a state of mortal sin WILL NOT be saved.

As for the actual thread topic, there has been no change and there will be no change in the Church teaching. Anyone who divorces and “remarries” without an annulment living in a sexual relationship in that “remarriage” will not and will never be allowed to receive Communion.
The Pope has no authority to breach a teaching (not a discipline) and tell priests they may give Communion to such persons.

According to Monsignor Pinto, Cardinal Burke and the other Cardinals who submitted the Dubia, may be stripped of their Cardinalates for suggesting what you have just said. I started a new thread with the story.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“step up to the plate”??!! How dare you? Any more and I will report you to the moderators.

That’s OK if you want.
You are the only one suddenly throwing around pejoratives like condescending and sarcastic for no understandable reason. Why is asking you to answer a few straight forward questions so hurtful to you?

I told you my comments were not about the unborn/ born but below the age of reason.

Remember you said “You cannot be in a state of mortal sin without committing a mortal sin.”

So I am asking you to theologise about what a “state of sin” is so that we may examine whether your always and everywhere statements re “a state of mortal sin” is as tight as it could be.

So the still unanswered questions I had were:

Are you aware that states of sin can be entered by ways other than commission?

Are you aware that where the old Canon Law and Catechisms use the phrase “mortal sin” they really meant “grave sin” in some cases?

It would be interesting in this regard to understand your view on the sinful state of the unbaptised newly born. Without further divine intervention (unbeknownst to us) is their fate just as spiritually mortal as that of an adult mortal sinner?

You’ve partially answered the last one with:

Being in a state of original sin only (no personal act by the person) and actual mortal sin (personal act committed by the person) are different. Both dying in that state - those in a state of original sin only MAY (the Church does not know) still be saved. Those dying in a state of mortal sin WILL NOT be saved.

So you accept the unbaptised have entered into a “state of sin” (though not “mortal sin”) without any commission of sin themselves?

And if you could respond to the other two questions (I won’t say “step up to the plate” because that offends you for some reason) that would be helpful.

 

[e_c]

how does anyone know the state of another person’s soul? tell me that.

if a person does not know the state of another person’s soul, by what faculty do they pass judgment on another person’s soul? tell me that.

has the Church ever declared the decisions of its marriage tribunals infallible?

if not, how do people know that refusal or granting of an annulment was not done in error?

it seems to me that all of the hub bub about amoris laetitia is generated by people who embrace the “letter of the law” school of religion.

Here is the now famous conflation between canons 915 and 916. One binds the minister, the other binds the communicant. If St. Therese miraculously showed up at Mass one day and someone put a rainbow sash around her, lying about how it represents the Noahic covenant and is a popular devotion, the one distributing Holy Communion would have to deny it to her. The issue is not only presumed sacrilege, but also very probable grave scandal.

Annulments granted or denied can be mistaken, but they are the binding authority (it is an investigation, remember, not a revelation). We can only go on what the Church judges in these matters. We are never competent to judge our own cases here.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

“step up to the plate”??!! How dare you? Any more and I will report you to the moderators. More sarcasm. You continue to be uncharitable.

“Step up to the plate” is a pretty common expression. I’m not sure why you’re taking it as such an attack.

(just weighing in on that, not the overall discussion)

 

[patricius79]

The challenge for many is that recent statements seem to imply that it is possible for someone to enter into a new “marriage”, but have reduced culpability that might make it grave matter, but not a mortal sin. For many of the faithful, both clergy and laity alike, is how to square that thought with Christ’s own teachings on Divorce and Remarriage.

You are much more knowledgeable than me, so I may be wrong. But I think it is true that it’s possible–though perhaps rare–that someone, due to subjective factors, could be in an objective state of grave sin (for example by committing adultery in an irregular union) without being in mortal sin.

But I think that someone in that position still needs to have a firm resolve to live in continence, especially if they want to receive Holy Communion. That’s what I believe is one of the things our beloved Holy Father needs to affirm.